Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
9th December 2019, 23:07 | #7241 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,752
|
Quote:
Sent from my SM-T837V using Tapatalk |
|
9th December 2019, 23:09 | #7242 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,752
|
Quote:
Sent from my SM-T837V using Tapatalk |
|
10th December 2019, 10:18 | #7244 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 49
|
Quote:
However, even with Level 1, RDOQ at 1.0 and Psy-rd at 2.0, I'm able to get better grain motion and more consistent results at the same filesize with Level 0 and massively elevated Psy-rd values instead. It just doesn't seem right. Surely I'm not the only one who's finding this? Last edited by markiemarcus; 10th December 2019 at 10:24. |
|
11th December 2019, 08:36 | #7245 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 184
|
Quote:
But hours (probably amounting to days...) of testing has led me to conclude that the most balanced for most sources at mid-high bitrates is usually psy-rd 1.0, psy-rdoq 1.0 and rdoq-level 2. I know what you mean with rdoq-level 0 though... In motion, it can look the most consistent and easiest on the eye. But if you compare encode frames to source frames you'll never get transparency with level 0. There seems to be some high-pass filter that sort of dulls grain and high-frequency detail even with psy-rd turned up to 5.0. With rdoq-level 2 and psy-rd 1.0 plus psy-rdoq 1.0, you can usually see that it at least tries to replicate the source even if that can lead to ugly and sometimes weird artifacts if your bitrate isn't sufficient enough to support it. As for rdoq-level 1, I find this to just be a rougher, less refined or accurate level 2. If you can get your hands on any internal 'haich dee bits' x265 encodes for, ahem, research purposes then you'll find that they all use rdoq-level 2 with psy-rd 1.0 and psy-rdoq 1.0. Give or take anyway... I've seen psy-rd 1.2 + psy-rdoq 1.1 and psy-rd 1.4 + psy-rd 1.0 but always within those boundries. They always consistently use no-cutree and usually qg-size 8 too. AQ mode 1 or 3 and often lots of zones as well. EDIT: and always CTU 32 and no-rskip. Last edited by RainyDog; 11th December 2019 at 08:40. |
|
11th December 2019, 09:19 | #7246 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 49
|
Quote:
I'm just seeing a lot of instances where RDOQ looks pretty nasty, regardless of the bit rate or values used. Will definitely check out your suggestions though. Appreciate it. Last edited by markiemarcus; 11th December 2019 at 09:40. |
|
11th December 2019, 10:38 | #7247 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 275
|
Hello,
is anyone having issues trying to build with Intel compiler 2019 integrated in Visual studio 2019 ? Building the multilib with VS 2019 works, building the multilib with LLVM Clang integrated inside Visual Studio 2019 works too, ( either the clang 9.0.0.0 version from the VS2019 installer or the last 10.0.0 version of LLVM installed separately and integrated in VS2019 with the LLVM2019 extension from the VS Marketplace. ) But trying to use the Intel compiler brings loads of errors and the build fails, tried also to make the single 10Bits build and it fails too. Was able to use ICC 2019 inside VS2017 some months ago and it was building correctly so I'm not sure if it's a problem on my side only or more general issue on the code, but after dozen of tries i can't find out what is wrong with Intel compiler so i ask here in case anyone have an idea. Thank you . |
11th December 2019, 18:24 | #7248 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 63
|
Quote:
|
|
12th December 2019, 14:29 | #7249 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 184
|
Sure, the below is always my starting point then I tweak from there if necessary with a dial or two down on --aq-strength and/or a notch or two up on --psy-rd. This is for a broad range of film sources at 1080p resolution.
Quote:
|
|
12th December 2019, 15:41 | #7250 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Russia
Posts: 105
|
Quote:
Ps: I looked at your settings, do you sure that ctu 32 merange 40 is better for 1080p than ctu 64 merange 57? Last edited by redbtn; 12th December 2019 at 15:44. |
|
12th December 2019, 19:42 | #7251 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 49
|
Quote:
Aq mode 1 I find more consistent than 2 if the source has intermittent low luma. Aq mode 3 obviously works well, though in my experience not always better than Aq-mode 1. Metrics don't tell the whole story. Last edited by markiemarcus; 13th December 2019 at 20:27. |
|
12th December 2019, 20:45 | #7253 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Russia
Posts: 105
|
Quote:
Any thoughts about using no-rskip? Does it make sense? I use no-rect too. |
|
12th December 2019, 22:23 | #7254 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 49
|
Quote:
I never bother with no-rskip. Rskip works very well. Some other preferences: I use rdLevel 4 and almost exclusively --limit-refs 1. If the performance impact weren't so dramatic, I'd use rdLevel 6. It's just better, there's no getting around that, but it is awfully slow. Considering the performance boost, early-skip isn't half bad either. You seem to be able to overcome most of its shortcomings with a 0.1 to 0.2 drop in CRF, which is not the case with some of the other settings. I've seen animated content that benefits from Sub-me 7 (yes, really), RC lookahead 80 and lookahead slices 1. It really doesn't hurt performance all that much either, but otherwise, the slower preset values for those are spot on. I've seen reproducible grain freezing and other blocking craziness with tu-intra 4, tu-inter 4 so I'm weary of anything other than 1. Limit-tu I don't know what to make of. I don't fully understand it either, or its relation to intra/inter. If the content is super flat animation and clean as a whistle, values of 4, 4 and 4 seem to work well enough. --cbqpoffs -1 --crqpoffs -2 works well for animation. x265 seems to struggle with deep reds without this. -tskip is nice. t-skip-fast causes problems in animation. --aq-motion is decent with Aq-mode 1 and generally allows a 0.5 drop in CRF for the same filesize, for which there is a noticeable benefit. I don't understand the dislike or distrust of the feature. --weightb I think is a must, along with b-intra. Both Rect and Amp are of extremely limited use IMO. Perhaps it's just the content I've been testing. I've seen comparable results with both disabled, to having both enabled along with limit-modes. With --no-limit-modes, yes, the difference I could spot, but it's dog slow. This was on animated content though; I haven't tested that on live action. 6 bframes I think is a good compromise for most content, though I've seen some small benefits to using double that on animated content. --selective-sao 1 is nice and now my go-to. qg-size 64 works well, even at 1080p. It's great on animated content. I don't go higher than max-merge 3. I've seen 4 and 5 produce worse results than 3 during fast motion in animated content. I don't know why. As I'd mentioned previously, I'm really not a fan of RDOQ Level 1 or 2. I much prefer Level 0 with much higher Psy-rd values instead. I understand why people like it, I just think it's ugly. --deblock -4:-1 on grainy or dithered stuff, --deblock -3:0 or -2:0 otherwise. --fades seems to work well. Default Me range and Star. UMH is better, but it's fractional. refs 4 is generally speaking adequate IMO. I keep strong-intra-smoothing on. Aq strength is difficult. Generally the default or 0.9 is fine, but if the content is super, super grainy, I've gone as low as 0.6 and put the difference into a lower CRF for better results. So my settings are a bit weird. I've arrived at them from probably thousands of 2 pass tests over a few years, aiming for 2:1 over x264 and no more. |
|
12th December 2019, 23:27 | #7255 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Russia
Posts: 105
|
Quote:
I didn't find on my tests that --strong-intra-smoothing is giving better results, but maybe I was wrong. My target bitrate is 16-18mbps for 1080p, so maybe it's a reason? Last edited by redbtn; 12th December 2019 at 23:36. |
|
13th December 2019, 01:35 | #7256 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 49
|
Quote:
--crf 16 --preset slow --output-depth 10 --limit-refs 1 --limit-tu 4 --tu-intra-depth 3 --tu-inter-depth 3 --rdoq-level 0 --no-rect --tskip --early-skip --b-intra --qg-size 64 --aq-strength 0.7 --cbqpoffs -1 --crqpoffs -2 --aq-motion --subme 7 --weightb --bframes 6 --rc-lookahead 80 --lookahead-slices 1 --deblock -4:-1 --psy-rd 5 --fades --selective-sao 1 --aq-mode 1 Everybody seems to have their own way of doing these things, this just happens to be mine. It's fast also. There's no reason why Aq-mode 2 wouldn't work if that's what you want, but it is a little less detailed on SDR sources from what I've tested, especially with regards to dither preservation. --qg-size 32 also works, but I prefer the look of 64 and I'd swear it's more detailed in low luma and holds together the deep reds better. --aq-mode 3 also works well if you prefer. It's worth tuning aq strength. The value depends on the source obviously, but 0.7 is a good a place to start. RainyDog's suggestion looks really nice and is far better than the default IMO. CRF 19.5 there is about the same size as CRF 16 here. Most of my testing was done on grainy animation, or animation with a lot of dither. They're quite different looking. Last edited by markiemarcus; 14th December 2019 at 01:50. |
|
13th December 2019, 09:08 | #7257 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 184
|
Quote:
Me-range 40 is about the cut off point where you just get diminishing returns for 1080p content at least. Qg-size is still a bit of ahead scratcher for me. In theory, 8 should yield bigger size encodes with the most detail retention but at the expense of more artifacting. Yet everytime I've tested at the same settings and CRF, qg-size 16 comes out the biggest, size 8 by far the smallest with 32 sat somewhere in between! So I usually just leave it at the default of 32. |
|
13th December 2019, 09:15 | #7259 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 184
|
You do realise that all selective sao 1 does is apply SAO to I-frames which are less than 1% of your encode, right?
SAO really needs a strength setting more than anything else. I feel it could be highly useful for all content if it could be tuned. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|